Search results for 'tag:Verbs tag:Indirect speech' matching tags 'Verbs' and 'Indirect speech'

Re: backshifting in indirect speech and verbs of communication

Anonymous — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 05:52:02 GMT

As your grammar book says, these verbs can be used in simple present. "Bill told me you were (or "are", because it's still presumably true before the move) moving to Sydney" is also possible in the fist example.By the way "contradict" is correct. :)

Re: backshifting in indirect speech and verbs of communication

Anonymous — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 05:40:10 GMT

Hi,

You wrote:

I learn from a grammar book that a small set of verbs of communication such as "tell", "say" and "hear" can be used in simple present tense even though the act of telling, saying or hearing happened in the past. for example, "Bill tells me you are moving to Sydney". according to the book, Bill's telling me was in fact in past time, but we're more concerned with the content of Bill's telling rather than Bill's act of communication. and thus the simple present form "tells" is not ungrammatical here.

I think the book is correct in that most people (or some people) I know from America talk like that: Part of the sentence might be in past time but it is not to be ungrammatical since I think the present focus of the conversation is in the past, present or in the future and that seems to be more important than the other.

eg,

Q Hi, John, I hear you got a raise. -- the hearing occurred in the past and the raise probably, if it is true, happened in the past but only one verb is in the past but I think it is grammatical.

A: Yes, how did you know? I got a raise last month.

As to your reported speech question, I think if something is to be fulfilled or realized in the future, then the tense remains in the future.

What John said yesterday: I will get a raise soon.

Reported speech: John said he will get a raise soon.

Please wait for other responses.

backshifting in indirect speech and verbs of communication

guzhao67 — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 05:14:18 GMT

Hi there: I learn from a grammar book that a small set of verbs of communication such as "tell", "say" and "hear" can be used in simple present tense even though the act of telling, saying or hearing happened in the past. for example, "Bill tells me you are moving to Sydney". according to the book, Bill's telling me was in fact in past time, but we're more concerned with the content of Bill's telling rather than Bill's act of communication. and thus the simple present form "tells" is not ungrammatical here. But in the subsequent part of the book, when dealing with backshifting in indirect reported speech, i found two examples which seem to contradict to the above cited example.(I must be wrong when I'm saying "contradict") The examples are: if Bill's original statement is "the match starts on 2 June", then 2 ways of indirect report are possible, according to the context. the first is "Bill said the march started on 2 June", and the second is "Bill said the march starts on 2 June" (if the report is before 2 June). My question is: why don't we use "Bill says...." here? since, according to the book, "say" is a verb of communication and the focus of the report seems to be the content of the Bill's statement, too. I'm really confused. Or maybe there are some other considerations which I've ignored. could you please help me. Thank you.

Please correct this English essay (1000 words)

amalievinter — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 17:21:47 GMT

GENRES

There are two categories within the world of texts: fiction (invented) and non-fiction (non-invented). The down-categories - e.g. epic, lyric poetry and drama - are called genres.
The concept "genre" descends from the Greek word "genos" that means family or kind. A genre is a category of texts - both fiction and non-fiction - that have something in common and that separate them from other texts. The genres can thus again be subdivided.

Examples of genres that both belong to fiction are the poem and the drama. Poems are often short, poetic texts - they describe an atmosphere, a feeling, an experience. They consist of stanzas and verses and have fixed rhymes, rhythms, sentence constructions and layouts. A word class dominates.

   Dramas are longer descriptions of actions - that is epic - in which there are included poetic aspects. They express with the help of a conflict that is the turn point and that drives the action forward. Therefore they consist of a beginning, a middle and an end that together has for intention of entertain.
   In order to exemplify the difference between different genres Shirley Jackson's "Charlesâ and âCall me Arnoldâ written by Studs Terkel are processed here.
   The first mentioned is the example of a classic short story. There is an introduction: âThe day my son Laurie started kindergarten â¦â (page 7, line 1) and more than one character involved: ââ¦ I watched him go off the first morning â¦â (page 7, line 3). The combination of direct and indirect speech which is one of the short story characteristics is also a part of it: âHow was school today? I asked elaborately casual. All right, he saidâ (page 7, line 14-15). Finally the story has a sudden and surprising ending: âCharles? she said. We donât have any Charles in the kindergarten.â (page 12, line 24-25).

The genre of the other text is the interview. The conspicuous difference from the short story is that it bounds of a question and an answer. There may possibly be an introduction and a conclusion. In this case you can see that it is an interview because the text only consists of direct speech: âIf I would believe in life after death. I would say my before-life I was living in Americaâ (page 14, line 14-15). He only shows himself for the interviewer and the reader. At the same time the text consists of spoken language expressions like âYou know what I mean?â (page 15, line 29). However it is an edited interview since the questions are edited out. This is among other things seen of the answer âI have emotionsâ (page 15, line 5) where it is obvious that he was guided to answer. The identity of the sender is explained too: âI was born in a little Austrian town, outside Grazâ (page 13, line 1) and âI came out second three times â¦â (page 13, line 15).

Just as the genre varies there is also a difference in the language of the texts. Both texts are built up like dialogues but there is difference between the sentences. While Shirley Jackson uses longer sentences with verbs, adjectives and details: âThe third day â it was Wednesday of the first week â Charles bounced a see-saw on the head of a little girl and made her bleed, and the teacher made him stay inside all during recessâ (page 8, line 24-27) and difficult words like âincredulousâ and âinsolentâ Schwarzeneggerâs answers are short, easy understood and fact orientated: âIt singles out: the winnerâ (page 13, line 13-14). He only speaks in main sentences.

The same disparity finds expression in the people's manner and characteristics. In the short story the people's character judging from actions and conversations is interpreted. Laurie is intelligent and smart as he while Charles is evil plays funny to get the parents' attention: âLook at my thumb. Gee, you are dumbâ (page 8, line 17-18). Later the story changes and Charles becomes good: âLaurie reported grimly at lunch on Thursday of the third week, Charles was so good today the teacher gave him an appleâ (page 10, line 20-22). But as Charles turns up to be Laurie he suddenly is a childish and brutal person: âCharles wanted to color with green crayons so he hit the teacher and she spanked him and said nobody play with play with Charles but everybody didâ (page 8, line 21-23).

The interview shows on the other hand clearly the person's identity. Schwarzenegger is determined and result oriented: âI had a dream that I wanted to be the best body-builder in the world and the most muscular manâ (page 13, line 4-5). He repeats himself about feelings: âYou must control your emotions â¦â (page 15, line 6-7) and âEmotions must not interfereâ (page 15, line 19). It's important for him that he has tangible, firm and honest demands - otherwise he may not be himself. This also means that his statements can sometimes be taken as didactically and provokingly: âIâm trying to make people in America aware that they should appreciate what they have here.â (page 14, line 23-24).

The identity thought is the generally essence of both "Charles" and "Call me Arnold". In "Charles" it is an abstract condition when Charles' actions only do not say anything about identity. But if the parents' role is included it makes sense. The parents are engaged at their child's childhood - e.g. shown in connection with the mother's correction of Charles: âAnything, I said. Didnât learn anythingâ (page 7, line 19). On the other hand they cannot realize the facts and see through that Charles doesn't exist even though the mother discovers a difference: ââ¦ my sweet-voiced, nursery-school tot replaced by a long-trousered, swaggering character â¦â (page 7, line 5-6). The message is that a neglected togetherness or upbringing will damage the identity.

In "Call me Arnold" it is about concrete conditions because Schwarzenegger only directly tells about his own story. Furthermore there is a focus on the individual: âNobodyâs holding you backâ (page 14, line 19-20) and âIf you have a dream and it becomes a reality, donât stay satisfied with it too longâ (page 16, line 2-3). The message is that the identity is created by objective, simple and logical observations and considerations with yourself.
The different way of expression, the person development and the communication but about the same theme explains why different genres are founded. Some genres are better in something than others and appeals better to another spectrum of people. This difference that unites texts will cause the interest of reading forever.

Re: ..why do I have vs ..why I have

CalifJim — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:25:41 GMT

Yoong Liat
it would be nice to hear what the other native speakers have to say on this.

According to Radford (Transformational Grammar):

Direct speech: "Will I get a degree?" John wondered.

Indirect speech: John wondered whether he would get a degree.

Semi-indirect speech: John wondered would he get a degree.

(Semi-indirect speech is so called because it shares features of both direct and indirect speech: the inversion of direct speech and the backshifting of indirect speech, for example.)

Personally, I find that semi-indirect speech is used most often in three situations:

1. In extremely informal conversation.

2. As a literary device, often to portray the inner thoughts and feelings of a character.

3. By ESL learners who have no intention of being either extremely informal nor of contributing to English literature, but who are aiming for indirect speech and missing.

Semi-indirect speech (with its subject-verb inversion) has nothing whatever to do with the emphasis provided by do-support uninverted:

Semi-indirect: John is wondering does Susan like to dance.

Indirect with emphasis: John is wondering if Susan does like to dance.

Semi-indirect: You may wonder why do I have two cars.

Indirect with emphasis: You may wonder why I do have two cars.

Re: ..why do I have vs ..why I have

EagerSeeker — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:43:25 GMT

Tanit

Hi,

As Goodman says, only the first one is correct,
From your post and your examples, I understand you've got Swann's book, right?
So, may I suggest another approach to clear your doubt?
That's an indirect question.
If you've got the same edition as me (the 3rd), have a look at section 276, "Indirect speech: questions and answers":

In reported questions the subject normally comes before the verb in standard English, and auxiliary do is not used.
- DIRECT: Where's Alice?
- INDIRECT: I asked where Alice was. (NOT ... ~~where was Alice~~.)
...
- DIRECT: What do I need?
- INDIRECT: She asked what she needed. (NOT ... ~~what did she need~~.)
...

If we try and use the same approach:

- DIRECT: Why do I have two cars?
- INDIRECT: You may wonder why I have two cars. (NOT ... ~~why do I have two cars~~.)

Yes, you are absolutely right! It is indeed indirect speech (I realized it later after reading more) and then we don't use auxiliary "do" in indirect questions.
But I found this to be a tricky one. Yes, I have Swan's book but he doesn't mention that we can use auxiliary do in indirect speech when the sentence
is negative.

I found this from my Finnish-English grammar book: "Auxiliary do is not used in indirect questions except in negative sentences".
Example: "Philip asked why children didn't read anymore."

So on the basis of what has been said so far I would find these examples correct:

"You may wonder why I have two cars."
"You may wonder why I don't have two cars." (negative sentence)
"You may wonder why I do have two cars." (emphatic sentence)

That emphasis is a nice suggestion from you guys!

Re: ..why do I have vs ..why I have

Tanit — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:47:12 GMT

"You may wonder why I have two cars."
"You may wonder why do I have two cars."

Hi,

As Goodman says, only the first one is correct,
From your post and your examples, I understand you've got Swann's book, right?
So, may I suggest another approach to clear your doubt?
That's an indirect question.
If you've got the same edition as me (the 3rd), have a look at section 276, "Indirect speech: questions and answers":

In reported questions the subject normally comes before the verb in standard English, and auxiliary do is not used.
- DIRECT: Where's Alice?
- INDIRECT: I asked where Alice was. (NOT ... ~~where was Alice~~.)
...
- DIRECT: What do I need?
- INDIRECT: She asked what she needed. (NOT ... ~~what did she need~~.)
...

If we try and use the same approach:

- DIRECT: Why do I have two cars?
- INDIRECT: You may wonder why I have two cars. (NOT ... ~~why do I have two cars~~.)

Re: the middle voice option

MrPedantic — Sun, 25 May 2008 22:49:37 GMT

Hello Dawnstorm,

Dawnstorm

In most of these sentences you could make a case for elided objects, that are taken care off by context (rather than considered irrelevant, as in "I am eating."):

e.g. Yes, I saw X. X = anaphoric; referring to "Did you see X!" or "Omg, X!"

"You push X and I'll lift X." : X is exophoric; determined by a present or imagined contex (e.g. they're standing in front of X).

Yes, I agree; such cases could presumably be classified as "common ambitransitives" (see ex. 4a in my earlier post); or perhaps as "ambiguous ambitransitives" (see ex. 6); thus:

1. You push (it) and I'll lift (it)

But:

2. It lifted quite easily

Dawnstorm

"What should we do when we punish X?" This one's actually more like the "considering irrelevant" I mentioned above, the assumption being that there is one set of answers for all X, so that X doesn't have to be mentioned. (Similarly, "I am eating X," the point I'm making holds for all X.) Note that the listener might enquire, here, "punish who?" or "eat what?"

"Please give X generously.": Here, X usually means "money", but context probably takes care of this (it might mean used clothes, household appliances etc. for flood victims). Here X is not so much irrelevant as implied.

Again, agreed. Presumably therefore "common ambitransitives".

Dawnstorm

I've heard that cognitive linguists often work with an implied object for many "intranstives". So: "I am reading" and "I am eating" always have a hint of "I am reading X" and "I am eating X", which is not expressed. A lot of this has to do with "theta roles"; what parts the verb's arguments are playing.

I am eating (X): Subject = agent

I am dying: Subject = experiencer

***

Yes, agreed. "Eat" is presumably unergative (ex. 4); "die", unaccusative (ex. 2).

I also agree with your inverted commas ("intransitives"), for verbs such as "eat" and "read". In non-metaphorical usage, the objects of "eat" tend to belong to a particular class ("food"), and are therefore to some extent always cognate with "eat"; whereas the objects of e.g. "hit" are not.

Thus "He eats well" does not need a context, for us to understand what the implied object is; but "He hits well" does.

Dawnstorm

Notice, for example, the semantic equivalence, but syntactic difference between:

- The sign reads, "Beware of the dog!"

- The sign says, "Beware of the dog!"

I agree that there's a syntactic difference: the first can't be presented as indirect speech, for example. "Reads" has almost a copulative sense here.

But I find a semantic difference too: the first presents the sign from the point of view of the reader, and the second, from the point of view of the writer.

Dawnstorm

This is the gordian knot that tangles up syntax, semantics and pragmatics. There are a lot of problems:
- The mirror is breaking.
I am dying.

vs.

- Don't break the mirror!
- Don't kill me.

See the problem? It's not only a syntactic but also a lexical problem. Break (intr.):Die (intr.) = Break (tr.):Kill (tr.). Does it make sense to claim that "break" is ergative/unaccusative (I'm still confused by the difference) and "die" isn't, because "die" selects a different lexical item for the transitive?

No, it doesn't make sense; and precisely because of that distinction, I would call "break" here ergative (ex. 5) , and "die" unaccusative (ex. 2).

Dawnstorm

But, again, syntax is not the same as semantics. Take this construction, for example:

"He died a cruel death."

While this assigns subject and object along the formal transitive model, semantically the "agent/patient" distinction breaks down; or rather, the fact that dying is not an action that affects death posits a problem to the "agent/patient" distinction within "voice".

The object here is a cognate object (it is implied in the verb itself) and thus belongs to a slightly different model. (I would say that it only exists to provide an adverbial opportunity: "he died a cruel death" = "he died in a cruel way".)

Dawnstorm

I'm not surprised people run from "ergativity"/"accusativity"; it's a tangle. I don't think that conventional morphological/syntactic analysis can solve the tangle adequately. It's a gordian knot, and all the syntanctician has is Alexander's sword. I'd look for solution in cognitive linguistics, construction grammar, frame semantics etc. These approaches could then help patch holes in syntax.

The terminology is not happy, admittedly; "middle voice" and "ergative" belong to other linguistic contexts, as has been mentioned; but I think it can be disentangled.

It may be the case that "ergative" usage was once much more common in English. Before the rise of the passive present progressive, for instance, an active present progressive often expressed the same meaning. Thus:

3. The house is building (pre-19th century) =
4. The house is being built

Also, although the same few verbs tend to recur as examples in these discussions, actual usage is more imaginative. For instance, last week I heard a sports commentator say:

5. The pitch doesn't look very pretty; but as long as it plays well, that's all that matters.

Best wishes,

MrP

Re: A sentence..

Anonymous — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 12:52:57 GMT

Thanks, Clive.

I have another sentence written as indirect speech that I wish to verify: 'I said that so do I'. Do you think I can write so or should I write 'I said that I do so'?

In case of affirmative sentences like 'So do I', written as indirect speech do I have to invert the order of verb and subject?

Re: Reported Speech

miriam — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:36:47 GMT

Hello. Sorry to hear you're feeling uncomfortable with this type of activity. But you're not alone: I would be, too!

The sentences lack context, which makes it difficult to tell when tense changes are necessary and when they are not (among other things).

There is one sentence that is wrong without a doubt: # 7. The sentence in direct speech uses the present continuous, and the reporting verb (added) is in the past tense, so it really makes no sense to use a construction with "will" to report that statement. You should either keep the same tense (present continuous) or change to past continuous. Sentence #6 has a similar mistake. The decision, however, is sometimes difficult to make since I have no idea when the original statements were made, when they are/were reported, and, also important, whether what was said still applies at the time of reporting or it doesn't.

The rest of the sentences seem OK in general, except for a few details, such as dates and time references, and person changes. For example, in # 8 you retain "a year ago" instead of changing it to some other expression like "the year before" or "the previous year". Again, though, that would depend on several variables, the moment of reporting among them. Also, in #10 you changed "our customers" to "his customers" (why not "their" customers?).

And you're not consistent with verb changes. In # 1, you shifted from the present perfect to the past perfect. But then, in other sentences, such as # 2, you retained the tense from the sentence in direct speech.

I know this isn't much help, but it will -hopefully- point you in the direction of your mistakes and/or inconsistencies.

When we're taught indirect speech, we're told to remember the "golden rule": change verb tenses. But the truth is that it always depends on the context and the content itself, on the people speaking and the time of speaking.

Give these sentences another try, please, and let's see what happens?

Miriam